Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries
Limitless Inc.
24
   |
Posted - 2013.12.07 22:35:00 -
[31] - Quote
I should make something clear. The strategic advantage of huge alliances is not primarily their supercapitals. Its their income and cash on hand due to all of their active players (PVEers, moon miners, some miners, salvagers, etc). They can ideally afford to replace all the ships they could ever lose in battles. Having lots of supercapitals (and knowing a trap when you see one) just lowers the chance that you have to replace a lot of ships. Because you can always call in more reinforcements than the other guy (unless attacked by a similarly sized alliance).
Smaller alliances can not play by this rulebook and engage as if they can win battles outright. This is an intrinsic fundamental part of how war works. When you only have ten tanks and the enem has a hundred, or even just twenty, you don't engage the enemy's main tank force. You can only maneuver and attack undefended or poorly defended places and then run before reinforcements arrive. Maneuvering is a form of making war by only moving your forces, not firing a shot. Lets say the enemy is attacking one of your large city's, or is about to, then you set sail for their main city. Then their force possibly turns around to meet your force in their city. You don't actually go attack their city now, you just pretend as long as possible and then attack another undefended place and separated forces that can't be reinforced in time. You maneuver until you can muster enough forces to win. When opportunities to fex take a few smaller forces from the enemy presents itself with small enough risks (basically you should just need to show up to win), you take it. Like small lonely garrisons, and chances to loot the enemy army's supplies etc. Ideally you make the enemy think they are spying successfully on your movements so they don't know you know they know your movements (or that is wrong, ideally you feed them false movements by turning their spies with huge bribes).
You can also for example on well defensible positions, win a battle with a smaller force than the enemy. But this is a risky thing. Say high ground as a well-defensible position. Though having an entrenched high-ground can be dangerous, you can be unable to escape, but this can also be a good thing (double-edged sword).
It is a double-edged sword because you can also win with a weaker force by having your army's backs to the wall or river (no return cyno, for example, "conveniently" arranged by the FC as an "accident" or "screw up"). This makes your forces fight for their lives and then (usually) take massive losses, and after quite some time the enemy that CAN run away, runs away (D-day, and many historical battles were won like this).
If you ever invent a way to change the warfare rulebook such that this is no longer how it is, without simply making the second place racer's car faster than the first place car, then I will sit quitely and listen. But until then, I will suggest ideas that don't simply give all second place drivers better cars than first place drivers. |